Defense in Bandy Child Porn Case Distorts the Truth
by Rachel Alexander | View comments |
Print This Post
It is unfortunate to see Wendy McElroy, a former writer for this site (who has always been very open about her libertarian views on pornography) drink the kool-aid of 20/20 and other media spin regarding the prosecution of Matt Bandy. The prosecution by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was not about adult pornography, it was about child pornography. When the police arrived at his house, Bandy said that he knew they were there because of him accessing Yahoo groups, and a CD was found next to his computer with child pornography on it. That's no "trojan virus."
In regards to the vicious attacks that have been made against me, consider the source including this.
Read the full article on Fox News
McElroy's article defending Bandy
McElroy's initial article defending Bandy
The website that the Bandy family had Bernstein Crisis Management set up to publicize their case
In addition, it should be noted that prosecutors asked for 1 year incarceration. That ended up being reduced to 0 incarceration plus probation. And it is not true that the prosecution tried to withhold the hard drive from the defense. The defense had the ability to come by the office anytime and examine the computer. They chose not to. Instead, they chose to file court orders requesting the office turn over the computer to them, which took awhile since the office had to do its own forensic investigation first. Nor are claims about the CD just being a backup of Bandy's computer correct. The CD held 650 megabytes. The computer had over 100 gigs of data, from backup files to homework files to mp3's. The CD only contained pornography (no homework or music files) carefully sorted into 51 folders with over 2800 images - clearly not some general backup. The folders had names like "beastility," "horse," "nudist," "tight," "ho comix," "good stuff - girl," etc.
Read the full report just released on Feb. 5 by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office
Attached exhibits to full report
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Read more articles by Rachel Alexander
Pardon me Rachel, but I need a little more context.
Being a 16 year old myself (considered a child by law in my home state), I need a little more than what's here. What is the legal limitation in his state? What age of children was he looking at? Can you give me some more details?
If a 16 year old "child" is downloading pictures of naked 15 year old "children" than I'm sorry, but I can't even remotely begin to say bad show. Teenagers like to see classmates (USUALLY teenagers) naked. So unless these kids were below high school level…who really cares?
Comment by WolvenBear | January 29, 2007
WovenBear:
One of the reasons possession of child pornography is illegal is because someone (usually an adult) made the child subject pose for the pictures. By possessing it, even another “child” is creating an increased demand for it, and therefore an incentive to increase the supply, resulting in more victims. Sorta like the law that makes it illegal to leave your keys in your car because it encourages teenage car theft.
There is an old African proverb: “Never tear down a fence until you find out why it was built.” Before advocating for social change, you need to find out why social norms exists, not ask society to justify keeping them.
Comment by sedonaman | January 29, 2007
WolvenBear,
Quite simply, pornography is generally exploitation of one form or another - even when done by adults. While it is true that many participate of their own free will simply because the money is so good (strippers, adult film stars, nude models, etc.), this does not negate the exploitation that also goes on. Yes, exploitation goes on in a lot of places, including so-called "respectable" industries, but I suspect that the percentage of exploitation in pornography is astronomically higher. Most people don't start life with pornography as a career goal, just like they don't start life with prostitution as a career goal. Exploitation of some form biases them in that direction. It might be sexual abuse as a child by a parent - which is definitely a form of exploitation. It might be drugs - another form of exploitation. It might be economic exploitation by the runaway who arrives on Hollywood with dreams of being in front of a camera, only to find that the only camera willing to take her involves removing her clothing. She's hungry and it's the only gig around. Not exactly rocket science to see the exploitation there. These are not isolated incidents. They are more often the norm.
The particular prohibition against child pornography is a recognition that children are usually the most defenseless in our society, and that exploitation of those without the ability to resist is a particularly ugly transgression. As you grow older, you will recognize that many things you may think and do as a 16-year old are unwise. That doesn't necessarily mean they should be prohibited, but at the same time, just because some teens want to participate in something without exploitation being a factor, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be legal. Think about trying to draft a law that says underage pornography is OK as long as all the people involved are underage as well - or as long as all parties consent - or as long as (fill in the blank). From a purely pragmatic standpoint it would be a mess to try and draft such a law.
There are huge moral issues as well.
I am not a moral or political libertarian. Teens should not be engaged in sex because there is too much at stake in terms of the psychological damage of bonding and then breaking with mulitple partners, the social consequences of teens having babies that they are unable to care for without government assistance, the medical consequences of VD and AIDS, and a host of other reasons I could list. Just because teens like to engage in certain behaviour without coercion, such as share nude pictures with each other, doesn't mean it should be condoned legally or morally. Sex is designed to bond two people - not just a recreational sport you'd engage in as freely as a game of one-on-one basketball with some guy you just met at the gym. Nude pictures are a prelude to actual or desired sex. Period. Maybe not for the person posing, but almost always for the person viewing. Don't try to tell me it is simply because you enjoy viewing the human form. It is because you want to *experience* that person's human form…either in reality or in your imagination.
The truly exploited person will often be so exploited as to actually believe that they are doing something willingly - they will exhibit behavior similar to Shawn Hornbreck, the recently rescued abduction victim of Michael Devlin. At some point, Hornbreck probably began to believe he was there of his own free will - just as Patty Hearst (a name you will probably not be familiar with. She was abducted by terrorists and later gave the impression that she participated with them of her own free will). Hornbreck had abundant opportunities to escape, yet chose not to. His parents indicate that he simply isn't the same person anymore. We will perhaps never know the psychological issues in Hornbrecks' situation, but would we argue that because he seems to have become a willing participant in his abduction after a few years that we should be lax on kidnapping? Of course not.
Society has always argued successfully that certain behaviors should be prohibited until an individual reaches an age to fully appreciate the consequences and risks involved, often because the potential for exploitation is so high. Drinking, statutory rape, driving, entering into certain contractual obligations, labor laws, and many other examples exist. It can be argued that age alone is a poor yardstick, and that there are plenty of 30-year olds with less gray matter than 16-year olds. My purpose here isn't to debate age-based laws in general. It is simply to point out that age-restrictions on pornography are an essential part of protecting children, and at 16, you are still a child. Trust me - when you reach 45, you will think differently about your maturity than you do now. I probably sound like a parent, and that's OK. When I became 45, I didn't magically erase my memories of what it was like to be 16. I still remember the thinking, the impulses, the urges, and the belief that I knew pretty much everything there was to know. But the older I get, the more I realize how naive I was. I promise you that you will be no different. Age does bring a certain allotment of wisdom in most cases. It's why we don't see too many 70-year old gang members, burglars, and street dealers.
You are very articulate and thoughtful in your posts. I would never have known you were 16. But I would still argue in favor of age-based restrictions on pornography up to at least age 18, even if your maturity were indicative of all 16-year olds.
Comment by nevadamistermom | January 29, 2007
Sedonaman,
Well said. "Progressives" seem bent on tearing down everything our culture has been built upon, demanding that those things justify themselves. But you're right, it is those demanding change that must justify their ideas. There is a reason that society is constructed the way it is - - it works.
Perhaps Wolven is viewing this through a libertarian lens, that is, private conduct is not the government's business. Legislating morality and all that. But society has its interest in private behavior, because privacy is not a blanket justification for doing whatever you want. Besides, all laws legislate someone's view of morality, anyway.
When my son was 18 and dating a 17 year old, I told him that he needed to watch his step. There is a moral dimenson to this and a legal one. His legal understanding must have a foundation in morality, or it is subject to the whims of pop culture.
Any law can be changed, but morality cannot. If it were suddenly legal to have relations with a child (of whatever age), it would still be immoral.
It is abundantly clear that laws cannot restrain lawless people. Only morality can. Morality provides the frame of reference to respond to laws, and to function in society generally. That's why it is so important to preserve.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 29, 2007
Sedonaman, putting children in jail for doing something in bad taste is extremely foolish. There are plenty of teenagers who take nude pics of themselves and share them.
Again, I want DETAILS. There was a case not terribly long ago where a girl put nude pics of herself on a myspace site and was forced to register as a sexual offender for distributing child pornography. Who does that help? Really?
There is a little difference in having change for change's sake than in refusing to change for the sake of tradition. If teenagers are looking at each other nude, throwing them in jail is idiotic.
I want more information. I sure don't buy this "zombie" nonsense, but it's a kid lying about porn to his parents. And remembering what it was like to be a horny teenager and what my friends were like, we made up some really bad or far fetched stuff when we were caught with contraband. I want to know if this is a teenager looking at other teenagers naked, or if this is a guy spreading pictures of 6 year olds being raped. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
Cause if it's the former, it's not in anyone's interest to throw the kid in jail and have him register as a sexual offender.
And for the record…that law about not leaving your keys in your car is a really stupid law.
Comment by WolvenBear | January 29, 2007
Wolven,
Who does it help? It helps all of us learn, embrace, and maintain a moral framework. The alternative is situational ethics, where people make up the rules as they go along.
There are things that are always wrong, a lot more things than you might think. There are fewer shades of gray than you might think. It is always wrong to post nude pics of yourself.
But if it's ok for a 15 year old, why not 14? Or 12? Or 7? Wolven, provide me with the iron-clad reasoning that says it's ok for a 15 year old to post nude pics, but not a 7 year old.
Comment by Mountain Man | January 29, 2007
Response to Wolven Bear:
I am sad that someone your age is already trying to justify your position (in this case justifying a pornography habit) based upon a technicality, such as the age of those involved, etc. …..You're probably right in one sense: looking at pornography is often just a "lark" for teenage boys; however, it no longer is a "lark" when the pornography viewing becomes an addiction and takes over the thought patterns of an otherwise promising young man……….Pornography addiction is a real problem today. Even within the churches it is estimated in some quarters that 1/3 of the men are struggling with a pornography problem. ….Some would say, "So what?", it doesn't affect anyone else, it is basically a victimless crime (if you ignore the children, etc. in the pictures who are obviously being exploited); however, the reality of the matter is that it robs the family and friends of the pornography addict of his primary love and attention. Just like a drug addict, he may mean to put his family first; however, the reality is that the pornography viewing has replaced family just as obtaining drugs come first for the drug addict.
I personally am aware of many whose families have been affected adversely by a member who has developed a pornography viewing habit. The addict is probably not even aware of what a loathsome creature he has become. Often the pornography addict loses his normal ambitions, living only for his secret viewing times.
Pornography appeals to our basest nature…..There is nothing redeeming, beautiful or lovely about it. To try and pretend like it is harmless or protected under a "free speech" right (therefore, making it right) are empty arguments with no base in reality. Pornography is dangerous, it destroys…..We should spend our time and energy warning others we love about its dangers, not pretending that just because something is "natural" (the so-called natural man is not a very pretty creature when all moral restraints are taken away….see Lord of the Flies) ergo, it is all right.
I know that it is now against the nature of our culture to label certain things "good", and others "evil" . We push the philosophy that states that man (or woman or child) has a "right to choose" ; he/she is under no authority other than his/her own volition. This denial of a moral authority (the Bible) has certainly set men free, but with no guidelines on how to use that freedom. Freedom unfettered results in anarchy or chaos…and, as history has taught us, gives rise to tyrants whose authority is not moral, only brutal and frightening.
Anyway, it just bothered me, young sir, that you have already bought into the secular mindset at such an early age. I hope you will think and examine this issue some more……and I pray that you will see the truth and the "truth will set you free" from all falsity……God bless…..Steve Edward
Comment by Stephen Edward | January 30, 2007
WolvenBear,
Did you bother at all to read the links provided? The rebuttal to the defense article written by Rachel for Fox News (the very first link in the post) was very thorough in describing all the details of case. All of the information you have requested is available there. Don't go off half-cocked without reading past the first line of the article. To further save you the trouble of actually reading the material provided, some of the images found were of children as young as 10 years old, and the DA's office let the kid off with NO jail time, with no mandatory counseling of any kind, despite the fact that he could have been sentenced to as much as 90 years in prison. That's pretty generous if you ask me.
Now to address your defense of this crime:
I'm not going to speculate on what may or may not occupy the gigabytes on your hard drives, or lecture you on your maturity level because for one thing, it isn't relevant to arguing your justification for kiddy porn advocacy, and for another, it would be very egotistical of me at the tender age of 20. But let me ask, why is the age of the perpetrator a factor for you? Using your logic, you could justify any kind of illegal pornography, and statutory rape for that matter. If a 12 year old is looking at pornographic images of a 9 year old on the internet, does it somehow make it okay because he is close in age to the victim? You're saying that it's okay to look at nude images of underage children just so long as the person looking at the images is a minor as well? How about statutory rape? Let's say the age of consent in a given state is 15. Is it okay for a 17 year old to have sex consensual sex with an underage 15 year old because he is closer in age to the victim than, say, a 30 year old? If an 18 year old "adult" has sex with an underage 15 year old, is he to be considered less an "adult" than a 25, or 35, or 45 year old person? If so, then by what justification can we convict the 25, or 35, or 45 year old of the same crime if they are all equally "adults", legally speaking? What is the cut-off age when you actually become responsible for breaking the law? When laws are broken in the course of what you may consider adolescent hijinks, are they somehow less applicable because of the person's age? And again, to what extent? Another example: Should a 15 year old kid caught with some pot and paraphernalia be let off the hook because he was just "doing what kids do"? And again, what's the cut-off age? Should we extend that same treatment to people until they reach 18? 21? Setting all that aside and assuming that we are operating under this idea of age-based selective morality/legality, let me ask you another question. Is, say, peeping in the girls locker room, or a girl flashing her breasts to classmates the same as seeking and downloading pornographic images of underage children and then distributing them for others to download as well? Or, in a similar vein, would it be okay for the said peeping toms to photograph their subjects and distribute the material on the internet? And if it is okay, then by what grounds do we prosecute any person of any age who subsequently downloads and views the images? If an 18 year old "adult" were to download said images, should that be illegal? What about a 20 year old? Getting back to the original argument, what is the cut-off age? Do we just arbitrarily decide every case individually with no universality of law? Your justification is based on a legal/moral relativism, which can easily be used (and frequently is used) to justify nearly any action you can think of. Your objections to this case are absurd.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | February 1, 2007
Patrick,
Well said.
Comment by nevadamistermom | February 1, 2007
Ok, two quick mistakes I'd like to get off my chest.
1. I'm not 16. I'm 23. I meant to say that in my mind set as a 16 year old 1 remember…(rest of my earlier post).
2. On my first two postings I didn't notice the FOX news posting that described the crime.
That said, the responses to my post were generally troubling to me.
Both Sedonaman and Mountain Man posted long rants. While both examined my motives (which was silly cause neither understood my motivations), neither addressed my question. This annoys me for two reasons. 1. It pretends that I'm trying to overturn Child Pornography laws, which I'm not. And the second, because it pretends that I'm about social change when I'm simply trying to determine whether someone needs to be jailed (real kiddy porn) or just embarassed severely (having nude pics of oneself or classmates).
I'm fascinated on what both of you think about those trying to undermine our way of life…now back to the point at hand.
I want to hit on a few things from the resulting posts and why they"re off base, or irrelevant. And all of these are based off of my original misunderstanding that the kid in question was looking at pics of kids his age.
Nevadamom wrote a beautiful post about age limits. Mostly, I agree.
But the point still remains, how do we deal with kids who aren't bright enough to understand why the laws are in place? Do we label them as sexual offenders for showing their body? Only if we are fools.
I'm not going to argue age limits, as that's not relevant to the debate, and doesn't work in anyone's favors.
As for Mountain, thank you for proving my point. While I doubt there are any 7 year olds posting nude pictures of themselves, let us (for the sake of my ORIGINAL argument) pretend that there are. Do we label that 7 year old a sexual offender? Again, only if we're really foolish. Teach the kid that what they have done is wrong. Don't brand them as a pervert and screw up their life.
And finally to Patrick.
No, I didn't notice the FOX link. I saw the three after it, but missed the FOX link. If the two original posters had said "Hey, stupid, he was looking at pictures of rape victims" instead of questioning my motives and whining about progressives wanting to undermine society, none of this would've been neccessary. Instead, they patted each other on the back for pointing out how foolish I was and seeking out the flaws in my perspective, though neither understood it.
That said. If the given legal age of a state is 15 years old…it justifies a 75 year old having sex with a 15 year old. Or a 30 year old. Or a 16 year old. Any way you look at it…it's good.
I get your point, but it's excessively flawed. Again I'm not going to get into the age demographics, but there is no societal good found by registering a 16 year old as a sex offender for looking at another 16 or 15 year old nude. It might warrent a heavy seesion with mom or dad and the belt, but it doesn't warrent screwing up the kids life and making society watch him for eternity just to prove a point. It's called mitigating circumstances. Under your earlier circumstances, do we put a 15 year old who has sex with a 14 year old in jail for 30 years? Do we register him as a sexual offender for the rest of his (or her) life? That's not moral, that's not preudent, and it's certainly not intelligent.
Comment by WolvenBear | February 2, 2007
I checked out that 92-page report the Arizona County attorney issued. If you take the time and read it, it's pretty obvious the guy was involved with child pornography, kinda rips all of the defenses of him to shreds. A lot of the criticism seems to be by some angry civil libertarians who didn't bother to read the full report. Check out page 2 of the report. The angry libertarians don't bother to explain away the kid's admission that he used the screenname joebean1988hoopdu, the fact that Yahoo's records showed that mrbob1980hoopdu was the name used to upload and download the child pornography on the user group, and the fact that the name listed for the mrbob1980hoopdu screenname was "Ms. Joe Bean."
What's kinda interesting too is his family and their hired guns at http://justice4matt.com/ have stopped issuing anymore statements. That site hasn't been updated in a couple of weeks. Where is their response to the Arizona County attorney's report?
The kid looks creepy, like the type who is secretly involved with weird stuff. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if he gets caught with it again soon. Wouldn't want him babysitting my kids.
Comment by Jami J. | February 11, 2007
In her comments Rachel Alexander states, "In regards to the vicious attacks that have been made against me, consider the source, including this:"
Well, yes, consider the source! By all means consider the source! Rachel Alexander does not state so, but she is employed by the Maricopa County Attorney - the same prosecutor who is under fire for his gross mishandling of the case and his aggressive attack on the Bandy family in the media. Why hasn't Ms. Alexander stated her relationship with the parties and her own clear conflict of interest? Is she paid to blog?
Consider the source? Intellectual conservative? Give me a break.
Comment by energydude | March 2, 2007
Energydude, try actually reading Rachel Alexander's entire article. The last line of her article on the Fox News site discloses that she is a deputy county attorney for the Maricopa Attorney's Office. I get the feeling you're trying to divert attention away from the fact that someone who has been accused of pedophilia is attacking Alexander. http://www.qna.net.nz/New_Zealand/People/Jim_Peron/
Comment by Jami J. | March 16, 2007